What you say is true, and is one more reason why genealogy is so complex: history doesn't fit neat patterns. There are conflicting accounts about firearm usage and ownership in early America, and it's quite obvious that some segments of American colonial society were both armed and efficient marksmen. The battle of Saratoga is a case in point, where American riflemen helped neutralize the British forces, resulting in the first major American military victory and de facto recognition by the French crown (we in this country ignore the fact that we achieved our independence more because of the World War that resulted between France and England than because the British lacked the will or means to defeat the colonies).

Even with Saratoga, however, we should be careful lest we give too much credit to the "yeomen farmers" and their Pennsylvania long guns, since the battle was won by conventional military tactics, including maneuver, siege and artillery. Burgoyne was defeated as much by his own arrogance and ineptitude as by the Americans he faced (the analogy to Dienbienphu and the French defeat in Vietnam in the 50s is unavoidable). I toured the battlefield last Summer, and it is emphatically NOT the romantic encounter that legend portrays, but a segmented fight in which the British surrendered because they were cut off from their supply line, not so much because they were crushed or otherwise humbled.

That having been said, I have read many accounts of militias who were more theatrical society than military unit. The men brought guns to their annual musters, guns that often were rusted, unusable or otherwise unsuitable for service in the field. And while store records are very useful, it's also impossible to review enough of them to ascertain with certainty that they are representative of the times, or aberrations.

Bill Cross
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: H. B. Gill 
  To: Bill Cross 
  Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 6:43 PM
  Subject: Re: County militia


  On the other hand when Francis Jerdone settled in Louisa County (I believe 
  in the 1750s if memory serves) he wrote to England for a musket because, he 
  said, he would be fined more than the cost if he did not have one. Militia 
  court martial books suggest that most militiamen were armed with decent 
  firearms. From my studies of colonial Virginia over the last fifty years, I 
  think that the lack of firearms in colonial America is a myth.  When Philip 
  Vickers Fithian toured in the Valley of Virginia in the mid-1770s he noted 
  that every house had a rifle and everyone knew how to use it.
           Estate inventories are the most unreliable sources for such 
  information. If you took them at face value, then you have to conclude that 
  colonial Virginia was a nudist colony. Merchant accounts are a much better 
  source.  Most customers regularly purchased powder and shot suggesting that 
  they kept useable guns. It might be worth noting that the gentry rarely 
  dealt with local merchants.
  For what it's worth,
  H. B. Gill

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html